Yet another religion thread: what constitutes weird?

[Dark_Silence]

i always said to myself that i could believe that someone named Jesus existed one day, and that he tried to help his fellows a lot, and tried to teach them some morality and really impressed the people from back then. But I dont believe he was the son of god.

I recently saw a part of a very interesting documentary on some tv channel (i hope they will diffuse it again some day, but not in the middle of the night this time). It was about the stories in the old testament, and tried to find out the "real" historical facts, for example who was moses, where he came from, and what really happened while traveling to find the place where god promised he could stay. It also tried to explain what could really have happened at the crossing of the red sea, and with the profecy moses made to the pharaoh before he accepted to liberate moses' people. It said that a vulcan in Santorin (thats the name in german, is it the same in English?) had an eruption at that time (traces of it can be found in teh ice of the north pole), and that it was very powerful and could have send ashes to the area of egypt. Thats what would explain the straneg things that are decribed in the bible. Then for the crossing of the red sea, it said that the vuclan eruption caused a tsunami, , and that the water first retired itself of the sea (that sometimes happen before the tsunami comes), allowing moses and his people to go through, and then came back with a gigantic wave (the tsunami), crushing the people from egypt who were trying to follow moses.

 

[Siren]

ahh interpretation, how convenient

What Jesus said? Did Jesus write anything that's in the bible? The words written in the bible are a subjective third person account of events that supposedly happened decades before. So we have some old old old guys writing a story about what they think they remember some guy saying to them many years before? Hows that for a primary source.

So Socrates didn't exist and didn't really say anything meaningful, because some weird guy called Plato who lived 2,500 years ago wrote down some things and said this weirdo Socrates said them. He was also very very old, and we all know what age does to people.

Really, Jesus speaks to me. He talks to me at nights. And not only when i'm sleeping.

 

[ian.de]

http://ffrf.org/books/lfif/?t=theologian

Came upon this excellent article, it's a good read if your bored.

 

[QRV]

I don't think the historical authenticity of either Jesus or his teachings is a matter here. The claims of historical truth were something the church fathers emphasized to put down other religions and anathematize them. Yet, by insisting on literal interpretations of the scripture, they managed to throw away or minimize some of the symbolic power of the Bible. That symbolic power, however, is the very essence of religion and thus it persisted.

So, from this perspective, the fallacy would consist on relying on concrete facts to determine the religion's authenticity. Religious authenticity is an essentially subjective thing, a matter of personal revelation that is canalized through a particular imagery. So it's not a matter if Jesus didn't really exist, if his teachings are not his teachings, if Buddah was a delirious junkie or if Mohammed was schizophrenic. To the religious mind, it's the symbolic message which truly matters.

 

[rahvin]

ahh interpretation, how convenient

Why? "Interpretation" does not equate to "force a text into saying what we want it to say". Everything needs to be interpreted, as facts themselves have absolutely no significance at face value.

If I came to you and asked you to close the window, you'd need to interpret what I'm saying to figure out whether I mean I'm cold or that you have an annoying pop-up cluttering your desktop. Would you say you're a manipulative bastard for coming to one conclusion?

 

[QRV]

Woa, I hadn't seen rahvin this agressive since LaRocque's last orgy of stubbornness. Well, isn't this ian guy something.

 

[rahvin]

Woa, I hadn't seen rahvin this agressive since LaRocque's last orgy of stubbornness. Well, isn't this ian guy something.

Wait, I'm not calling him a manipulative bastard in the above post, am I? I mean, not that I didn't consider doing it for a second, but then I took my medicine and the pink elephants chased the black rhinoceros away again.

Edit: Besides, I have to admit that despite the link to that awful website he's being a very good sport.

 

[hyena]

@rahv: you should thank him for the website - only way i finally realized i'm delusional.

@qrv: i'm not sure about that. while i see what you mean with the reference to symbolism, i think that a large part of (western) christianity relies on the assumption that incarnation is a fact.

 

[QRV]

@qrv: i'm not sure about that. while i see what you mean with the reference to symbolism, i think that a large part of (western) christianity relies on the assumption that incarnation is a fact.

Yes, celts also believed that Cuchulain existed, aztects were expecting Quetzalcóatl's return and hindus believe Krishna walked the Earth. Hell, some hindus these days doesn't think Krishna incarnated, yet they believe in him.

Granted, Christianity is a bit more complicated than that. Jesus existed and that's a fact (despite what a few really strange and doubtful investigations say), but the whole christian religion is based on the legend of resurrection for which, we agree, there is no historical proof. it is all based on a mythological construct around a historical figure, just as many legends are. the only difference is the enourmous emphasis that was put on Christ as a man-God that really existed and wandered through Israel at the time of Pilate. it was no longer a "once upon a time" story, but centered around a concrete historical time. this happened according to a new, general historical consciousness that was just starting to develop in the collective mind of the old continent.

But you see, it's resurrection that gives Jesus his meaning. Without that, he wouldn't have passed from being a crazy prophet. From the moment the word of resurrection began to spread, Jesus became Christ, an archetypal, dynamic and emotionally-charged figure that contains the trascendental within itself. We know nothing about the man that was crucified around 40 AD (not 33, which is a symbolic number; see, a symbol turned into history); we know about the God he was turned into. This whole construct becomes evident when you look at all the different kinds of rites and beliefs that surrounded his figure by the turn of the 1st century.

By now, his symbolic power is so great that, in my opinion, even if some irrefutable evidence of the unexistence of Jesus was exposed, there will still be millions of people that would say "bullshit, he's God and I believe because he's spoken to me in my heart". revelation and faith can outweight almost anything, I think.

And even if something like that happened, would it mean Christ isn't a representation of a real God? I don't think so.

 

[hyena]

@qrv: yes, yes you're 100% right. i misread what you'd said, thanks for clarifying.

 

[Hiljainen]

@MagSec4: i don't have much time lately so i just read the thread quickly, but thanks for explaining, it was perfectly clear and interesting

 

[QRV]

In fact, Siren, I personally agree with you too. Hell, I'd love to drink with Jesus if I had the chance. I'd come up during the Sabbath.. whistle from the shadows, and Jesus would sneak out of the temple so we could go together to a nice hill. I'd whip out two shot-glasses and a gallon of water from my backpack, and say: "Jesus, do your thing" We'd sit around a nice mini table (snuck out of his carpenter father's workshop), and we'd have ourselves some of the best conversation I could claim to have had in a very long time. And before long, he'd be stumbling and swirlbanging his long-haired head to Zyklon's "Ways of the World" (I also carried a stereo system in my backpack).

For a moment I thought there was a sexual connotation in there.

Jesus headbanging to Zyklon? I'd think he has better taste.

 

[Matse]

Sorry for the offtopic but imagine Jesus and Stanne would meet . They wouldn't know who is who.

edit: They should start a band. I bet that would be great. And what about a new version of the Shadow Duet with Jesus and Mikael. Damn, I should start taking drugs so I would at least have an excuse for what I am writing.

 

[ian.de]

By now, his symbolic power is so great that, in my opinion, even if some irrefutable evidence of the unexistence of Jesus was exposed, there will still be millions of people that would say "bullshit, he's God and I believe because he's spoken to me in my heart". revelation and faith can outweight almost anything, I think.

Hit the nail on the head. That's why I don't argue religion with people outside of the internet/close friends. I may seem like I'm a disagreeable asshole but that's just how I act on the internet, in real life I'm more respectful of others beliefs.

 

[DisplayofCharacter]

I may seem like I'm a disagreeable asshole but that's just how I act on the internet, in real life I'm more respectful of others beliefs.

Proof or GTFO

: just kidding :

 

[rahvin]

I may seem like I'm a disagreeable asshole but that's just how I act on the internet, in real life I'm more respectful of others beliefs.

Oh hey! Sanctionable argument:

Everybody in the universe loves you except the Dark Tranquillity forum

Just kidding, too. I don't think you came off as disrespectful, anyway. But the first impression was that you were trying to patronize theists by means of a website made by a tuber.

 

[hyena]

i never really understood the story about internet personalities, which does not mean that you're really cool while online.

random thought on religion: these days i am realizing that most major denominations of christianity do leave the field completely open with respect to how god "happens" in everyday life, except for a basic set of rules of the don't kill, don't steal, don't cheat variety. but then again, these are supposed to concern what you should refrain from doing so as not to anger god, not what you should to to attain happiness. and while it is true that jesus also gave a positive command, in the "love god with all of yourself and love thy neighbor" part of the gospel, this is a really broad category. i'm glad there are no clear guidelines, and assume god knew that everyone needed a different way to follow this specific item of teaching. but once one tries to unravel the stars (!) and see where they should be going, religion really only gives very broad directions, such as "do not live for making money only" or "remember that the real deal is the afterlife, not here".

 

[MagSec4]

First of all that's still Old Testament you're talking about. I'm sure you know that's a symbolic story, probably a story made up for uneducated people some thousands of years back, who kept wondering why we have to suffer in this life. And on to the good part...

Yes, that's what I was saying, that a big part of what the New Testament is about is based on this Old Testament story and the idea of original sin. I'm sure you're sure that you and I both know that's a symbolic story. My broader view, though, looks at all this and sees so many "stories" widely believed by rational people to be untrue, and makes it extremely difficult for me to believe that there is ANY literal truth to any of it. I know there is plenty of symbolic "truth" and good morals to the stories, but in looking at it "outside the box" how can you not wonder that maybe there is no God at all. Maybe the whole God thing is "a symbolic story, probably a story made up for uneducated people some thousands of years back, who kept wondering why we have to suffer in this life." (as you so well put it).
And bringing into consideration the vast amount of knowledge there is of biology, human cognitive psychology, and human sociology it all makes good sense. And in my case that "maybe" turns into "by far the most probable explanation".

Who ever said he got tortured and killed for that specific sin? For a former Christian you don't seem to be very well versed in this. My understanding is that it happened for the forgiving of *all* sins, most of which by the way are commited by humans and are not at all imaginary.

And what does that mean? That we may all now feel free to sin away because it's all been forgiven? One of the biggest criticisms I've heard of Christianity is how conveniently easy it is to do whatever one wants and stay in the graces of God, because all one has to do after commiting any sin is repent ..just ask for forgiveness in a prayer, and tell a priest. And repeat as necessary.

Did it ever cross your mind that the original sin that is passed down to all men and women myth might just be an indirect way to say that no human is perfect?

Did it ever cross your mind that that, along with every other superstitious and religious belief, is not only an indirect way of saying that no human is perfect, but indeed a manifestation of human imperfection?

 

[Siren]

Yes, that's what I was saying, that a big part of what the New Testament is about is based on this Old Testament story and the idea of original sin. I'm sure you're sure that you and I both know that's a symbolic story. My broader view, though, looks at all this and sees so many "stories" widely believed by rational people to be untrue, and makes it extremely difficult for me to believe that there is ANY literal truth to any of it. I know there is plenty of symbolic "truth" and good morals to the stories, but in looking at it "outside the box" how can you not wonder that maybe there is no God at all. Maybe the whole God thing is "a symbolic story, probably a story made up for uneducated people some thousands of years back, who kept wondering why we have to suffer in this life." (as you so well put it).
And bringing into consideration the vast amount of knowledge there is of biology, human cognitive psychology, and human sociology it all makes good sense. And in my case that "maybe" turns into "by far the most probable explanation".

This is a very good point. In my case though, it is exactly that vast amount of knowledge that makes me believe. I find it quite unlikely that all this complexity and perfection of rules that we find in the universe (even in human bodies, the complexity with which they grow and work is amazing), came to be in a random way. Our world makes too much sense to have been created by mere chance. And i'm quite sure someone made those rules by which the world goes round in the first place, how else could they exist on their own? If they did, they are what some people want to call God.

And what does that mean? That we may all now feel free to sin away because it's all been forgiven? One of the biggest criticisms I've heard of Christianity is how conveniently easy it is to do whatever one wants and stay in the graces of God, because all one has to do after commiting any sin is repent ..just ask for forgiveness in a prayer, and tell a priest. And repeat as necessary.

That's also a good point. The catch is that repent has to be sincere. A half-assed or hypocritical confession to a priest doesn't help much in my opinion. On the contrary, sincere regret leads to forgiveness even without the church and priest thing. Rinse and repeat is certainly not an element of sincere regret.

Did it ever cross your mind that that, along with every other superstitious and religious belief, is not only an indirect way of saying that no human is perfect, but indeed a manifestation of human imperfection?

You're full of good points today.

 

[hyena]

i'm daring god to make my luggage arrive.